Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Poynting vector = ExH = E*H*sin(A)

Incorrect. The Poynting vector is defined as E x H*. The vector
directions are critically important.

Those who don't remember what the cross product is,
please reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

Another name for the cross product is the vector product.

Quoting "Fields and Waves ..." by Ramo & Whinnery:

Poynting vector = ExH These are, of course, vectors.

Quoting "Reference Data for Radio Engineers":

ExH is called the Poynting vector. Again, vectors.

The average Poynting vector is defined as
Re(E x H*)/2 in my references.

So your "Incorrect." assertion above is proven to
be incorrect.

The Poynting vector for a pure standing wave = 0.

Says who? Perhaps the time and space averages or "net", whatever that
means, but not the local instantaneous Poynting vector.

Let's deal with the average Poynting vector. The real
power in the fields is equal to the magnitude of the
average Poynting vector. There is zero real power in
the standing waves. Therefore, the average Poynting
vector is zero at every point on a line containing
pure standing waves.

So, using Occam's razor, here's the same question
for you stated in a different way.

If E and H* are both non-zero, how can the following equation
be equal to zero all up and down the line as we know it is for
standing waves?

Pav = Re(E x H*)/2 = 0 where E 0 H*

It is always zero even when both E and H are not zero.

Nonsense. It is E x H* at every point. If E or H is zero then the
Poynting vector is zero. Otherwise it will not be zero.

True for a uniform plane wave. But I have already proved
that a standing wave is not a uniform plane wave.
Pav = Re(E x H*)/2 = zero for a standing wave. I hope
you don't question that fact of physics.

The answer is that you have started with incorrect equations.

The answer is exactly what you have been missing. Please
solve the updated problem above.

It is obvious that if V*I*cos(A) = 0, then Re(E x H*)/2
must also be zero even when E and H* are not zero. How
do you explain that fact?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:





art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ









but this concentration on antenna workings is
blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 12:14, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?

This discussion, to a large extent, is concerned with the
nature of RF waves. There are no RF waves in a simple
parallel circuit. I posted a list of characteristics
of an EM plane wave. A parallel circuit doesn't match
those characteristics.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
But I am not sure they understand one bit of what you are proposing!
With respect to your remark on my radiation attempts.
When this group did not understand the relevance of Gaussian equation
with those of Maxwell
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.
Thisd would then mean a continuum of postings that would only go
around in circles becaus of their past cessation in learning.
Best regards
Art

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

art wrote:
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.

There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 13:30, wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:





On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:

art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ

but this concentration on antenna workings is



blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 15:31, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.

There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com
Cecil,
I respectfully do not agree with that.I would suggest that the antenna
mechanics what I am preaching is directly applicable to complex
circuitry.If antenna theory can't
apply to such then the theory is in error.Antenna radiation came to a
halt in understanding some 50+ years ago.Since then science have tried
a lot of new sciences that even tho they do not solve the mystery of
radiation provides a whole new stream of old wives tales.And hams are
sucking every thing up without question. Nature has simple habits , it
is humans that try to make it complicated.
My best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG (uk)

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Poynting vector = ExH = E*H*sin(A)

Incorrect. The Poynting vector is defined as E x H*. The vector
directions are critically important.

Those who don't remember what the cross product is,
please reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

Another name for the cross product is the vector product.

Quoting "Fields and Waves ..." by Ramo & Whinnery:

Poynting vector = ExH These are, of course, vectors.

Quoting "Reference Data for Radio Engineers":

ExH is called the Poynting vector. Again, vectors.

The average Poynting vector is defined as
Re(E x H*)/2 in my references.

So your "Incorrect." assertion above is proven to
be incorrect.


I am glad to see you agree with me. However, your long exposition above
is not what you said previously, E*H*sin(A).

Therefore, your proof that my "Incorrect" assertion is incorrect is
itself incorrect.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.

Totally ducking the issue, as usual.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 18:25, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...

your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. *And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge."

OK art, I notice a great improvement in your having only 3 spelling errors
in 5 sentences. You are a fool. If your postings could ever be elevated to
the level of mere stupidity, then it might be possible to correct your
misconceptions. However, one cannot deal with true insanity by any rational
approach such as that. You do not drive me to use Google; you drive me to
dictionary.com so I can find the words appropriate to describe the idiocy of
your ravings. However, it isn't worth the effort so I will leave you mired
in your intellectual wasteland, reading your postings from time to time for
the entertainment value of comic relief. For the sake of *the hobby I will
continue point out the fairy-tale nature of your postings lest the casual
reader of this newsgroup ever get the wrong impression of what the typical
ham radio operator thinks is antenna "theory".

AI4QJ

For entertainment value look for where the photon term came
from.....Quantum theory
which has not been proven. If a particle os in a magnetic field it can
take on some of the properties of that field. To be propelled requires
mass as does a mechanical vibration of a radiator. Yes mechanical laws
equate with electrical laws.The object that was repelled is a mass
with anti gravitational tendencies which allows it to have straight
line trajectory.
That straight line trajectory is of a partical that now has potential
energy received from a magnetic field. That energy becomes Kinetic
energy on impact with a receiving antenna which thus is instrumental
with a multitude of other particles in applying a mechanical force
whose reaction is supplied by the receiving radiator in the form of
vibration. When you are talking radio you are talking MHz which
translates into millions of particles or samples taken by the
receiving antenna, a lot more than your ear can accomplish. The proton
idea was thought up by Einstein in an effort to understand what
radiation is and he died without solving that puzzle.
Einstein made a tremendous amounts of errors in his life time and this
is just one of them.
Ham's look for resonance has the salvation of all but this is just a
ham's point of view. Like a quadratic equation there are two answers
to choose from, but only one that satisfies Newtons requirement for
equilibrium. Ham's choose to recognise just resonance because it is
self serving for amateur operation,but science will always follow the
requirement for equilibrium
just as all the masters did.So many new sciences were invented in an
effort to identify radiation that were not required because the
simplicity Of Gaussian law reflected the true nature of radiation.
You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)